Ian This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: The County of Kings Gender: Male
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water, and stupid men."
| | Re: Forum Read States Change (those little circles) <Reply # 63 on 12/7/2010 3:04 AM >
| | | Posted by Avatar-X I'm going to respond to specific comments: ... You can find all sorts of interesting statistics about UER at www.uer.ca/forum_stats.asp . But suffice to say that less than 0.1% of UER's current members are premium members. I highly doubt this initiative will bring in lots of money, but if it does, it might be enough to buy a new server. The monthly "donation drive", after all, only covers the hosting costs. I recently had to buy a new power supply for the server ($300) and that money came out of my pocket. ...
Thanks for your honest comments, everyone. So far, the best idea I've heard is adding more value to Premium Membership by reducing the cost to time ratio. So the question I put to Kowalski, ETMJ, Ian, et. al, is: Since $5 a month is too steep, what would you consider fair and reasonable? Thanks, -av
|
Well, how about a solution to the problem that does not involve charging people at all for advanced readstates? I looked at the link you provided for the stats - some fascinating stuff on there btw - and noted the following: Number of registered users: 37079 Number of active users (seen in last 30 days): 2983 So here's a solution that doesn't involve charging people - once a month or so, have the database remove entries for all users not active within the previous month. That cuts the number of DB entries needed down to less than 10% based on these statistics. Surely if this hasn't been a huge issue up until recently, then a DB 1/10 the size of the current setup will not be problematic at all. 1/10 the resources would be consumed. When a legacy member actually re-logs in, the DB could create a fresh entry for them. I would much prefer to risk losing my readstates if I haven't bothered to login for a month over losing them entirely because I don't feel like paying for them. If the issue really is simply the amount of resources consumed, and the idea behind charging for membership was to cut down on the number of members consuming resources, then we can achieve the same goal without charging members and everybody is happy!
|
|